A vote for the word ‘suffragist,’ not ‘suffragette’

Most women who campaigned for the right to vote preferred the gender-neutral term, “suffragist.” So why does the diminutive “suffragette” persist?  


In 2019, Democratic congresswomen wore white to the State of the Union address to honor the women who had fought for the right to vote and to highlight the progress that still needs to be made toward legal equality. Early 20th-century campaigners would often dress in white, a traditional symbol of female purity, to call attention to their cause. In this online age, the congresswomen used the hashtag #suffragettewhite. 

It is ironic that suffragette has become such a widely used term, since most of the women who campaigned for suffrage preferred the gender-neutral suffragist. Suffragette was coined in 1906 by a (male) journalist in order to mock the “militant” members of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in Britain, who went on hunger strikes and chained themselves to railings. 

As a demeaning term, suffragette was effective. The diminutive suffix -ette implies small (kitchenette), imitation (leatherette), and cute (imagine the Radio City Rockets instead of the Rockettes). The women of the WSPU turned the word into a rallying cry, however. They referred to themselves proudly as “suffragettes” and renamed their newspaper The Suffragette. Most American campaigners, leery of what some regarded as WSPU’s aggressive methods, preferred suffragist

The -ette suffix did not die out when women finally won the right to vote. Instead, its use multiplied as they joined the workforce in larger numbers. When Congress created the Navy Women’s Reserve during World War II, newspapers reported it as “Roosevelt Signs ‘Sailorette’ Bill” (Topeka Capital, July 31, 1942). In the same year, a magazine noted that Chicago had hired female police officers: “Chicago tries ‘Copettes.’”  

Today -ette is no longer a productive suffix, according to the Oxford online dictionary, except when used in a “deliberately flippant” or “humorous” way – some female supporters of President Donald Trump call themselves “Trumpettes,” for example.

The synonymous suffix -ess is falling out of use as well. Movie stars are actors today regardless of gender. Waiters and waitresses have both become servers; stewards and stewardesses are flight attendants. While -ess is less openly belittling than -ette, it serves the same pernicious function; it implies that the default person in the role is male, and a woman is noteworthy and less qualified. 

Today, we refer to people engaged in a cause as activists, whatever their gender. The use of gendered diminutives is dying out, thanks to the protest movements set in motion by the suffragists.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A vote for the word ‘suffragist,’ not ‘suffragette’
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today